Abstract

The present bibliometric study provides an in-depth examination of the expansion and evolution of ethnobotanical literature during the 2009–2018 timeframe, highlighting important patterns and trends that have shaped the field over the past decade. Specifically, it explores the nature and distribution of authorship patterns, assesses the extent of researcher collaboration across institutions and countries, and analyzes the type and rate of publication growth during this period. By tracking these parameters, the study offers valuable insights into how ethnobotany has progressed both in volumes of research output and in the sophistication of scholarly cooperation. The findings of the study reveal that joint publications have been steadily increasing year by year, which is a strong indicator of active intellectual engagement and the recognition that ethnobotanical research benefits from interdisciplinary and crossregional partnerships. Such collaborative efforts not only enhance the quality and scope of research but also contribute to a more integrated understanding of plant use, traditional knowledge systems, and biodiversity conservation. However, the results also underscore that, despite this consistent progress, ethnobotany has yet to secure full recognition as a distinct academic discipline in its own right. At present, it is often perceived as a subfield within broader areas such as botany, anthropology, or environmental sciences. Achieving recognition as an independent field will require sustained and strategic collaboration among scholars, as well as targeted research that addresses global challenges like climate change, food security, and cultural heritage preservation. Strengthening institutional support, increasing funding opportunities, and enhancing visibility through high-impact publications will also be critical to its advancement within the global scientific community

• 1.   Cole (FJ) and Eales (NB). (1917). The history of comparative anatomy. Science Progress, 11, 578-96; 1917.
• 2.   Prichard (A). Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics. Journal of Library and Documentation, 25 (1), 348-49; 1969.
• 3.   Nebelong – Bonnevie (E) and Frandsen (TF). Journal citation identity and journal citation image: a portrait of the Journal of Documentation. Journal of Documentation, 62 (1), 30-57; 2006.
• 4.   Dhiman (AK). and Rani (Y). Indian botanist’s contribution: a bibliometric study based on Journal of Indian Botanical Society, 1997- 2001. Indian Journal of Information, Library & Society, 18 (3-4), 108-15; 2005.
• 5.   Dhiman (AK). Ethnobotany Journal: A tenyear bibliometric study. IASLIC Bulletin, 45, 4, 177-82; 2000.
• 6.   Dhiman (AK). and Sinha (SC) Impact of research collaboration on Growth of Literature in Ethnobotany: A bibliometric study. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 38 (1), 53- 62; 2001.
• 7.   Dhiman (AK). A Bibliometric study of ethnobotany journal-1999-2008. Indian Journal of Information and Services, 5 (2), 44 – 55; 2011.
• 8.   Dhiman (AK). Bibliometric studies in ethnobotany. SSDN Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi; 2015.
• 9.   Nayana (J) and Padmavathi (N). A bibliometric study of journals represented in the Directory of Open Access Journals. Indian Journal of Information Sources and Services, 9 (1), 4-8; 2019.
• 10.   Dhiman (AK). and Rehman, H. What botanists tend to Cite? Indian Journal of Library & Information Science, 16 (3), 173-183; 2022.
• 11.   Baby (RM) and Akarsh (R). Bibliometric analysis of ethnobotanical research in India (1963-2024): Trends, collaboration and themes based on Scopus. Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 37, 1-16; 2025.
• 12.   Harshberger (JW). The purposes of ethnobotany. Botanical Gazetteer, 21, 146–154; 1896.
• 13.   Jain (SK). Ethnobotany-What and why. Ethnobotany, 4 (1-2), 75-79; 1992. 14. Dhiman (AK) Ethnobotanists in new millennium. Advances in Plant Sciences,
• 15.   Jain (SK). and Mudgal (V). A handbook of ethnobotany. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun; 1999.

Data Sharing Statement

Funding